Mobility and satisfaction with a microprocessor-controlled knee in moderately active amputees: A multi-centric randomized crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Microprocessor-controlled knees are generally prescribed and reimbursed for active amputees. Recent studies suggested that this technology could be useful for amputees with moderate activity level. We compared the efficiency of a microprocessor-controlled knee (MPK, Kenevo, Otto Bock) and non-MPKs (NMPKs) in these indications. METHODS: A multi-centric randomized crossover trial was conducted in 16 hospitals from 3 European countries. Participants were randomized to an MPK-NMPK sequence, testing the MPK for 3 months and the NMPK for 1 month, or to an NMPK-MPK sequence, testing the NMPK for 1 month and the MPK for 3 months. Dynamic balance, the main criteria, was assessed with the Timed-Up and Go test (TUG), functional mobility with the Locomotor Capability Index (LCI-5), quality of life with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 v2 (SF-36v2) and satisfaction with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0. The occurrence of falls was monitored during the last month of trial. Analysis was by intent-to-treat and per-protocol (PP). RESULTS: We recruited 35 individuals with transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation (27 males; mean age 65.6years [SD 10.1]). On PP analysis, dynamic balance and functional mobility were improved with the MPK, as shown by a reduced median TUG time (from 21.4s [Q1-Q3 19.3-26.6] to 17.9s [15.4-22.7], P=0.001) and higher mean global LCI-5 (from 40.4 [SD 7.6] to 42.8 [6.2], P=0.02). Median global satisfaction score increased (from 3.9 [Q1-Q3 3.8-4.4] to 4.7 [4.1-4.9], P=0.001) and quality of life was improved for the mental component summary of the SF-36v2 (median score from 53.3 [Q1-Q3 47.8-60.7] to 60.2 [51.6-62.6], P=0.03) and physical component summary but not significantly (mean score from 44.1 [SD 6.3] to 46.3 [7.0], P=0.08). Monitoring of adverse events including falls revealed no differences between both assessed devices. CONCLUSION: This study enhances the level of evidence to argue equal opportunity for all individuals with transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation, regardless of their mobility grade, to be provided with appropriate prostheses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".